Scottish nationals have two supra-national citizenships. One is UK citizenship, the second is EU citizenship. In democratic referenda over the past two years, Scots have voted clearly to retain both citizenships.
Unfortunately it is not possible to respect both democratic decisions of the Scottish people, due to a vote by other nationalities. So where you have democratic decisions which cannot both be implemented, which does democracy demand should take precedence?
It is not a simple question. The vote to retain EU citizenship was more recent and carried a much larger majority than the earlier vote. In addition it was made crystal clear during the campaign that it may require the overturning of the earlier vote. So on these grounds I believe the most recent vote must, as an exercise in democracy, have precedence.
In these circumstances the announcement by the First Minister that she is initiating the procedure on a new referendum for Scottish independence from the UK, in order to retain Scottish membership of the EU, is a sensible step.
Source: Craig Murray
Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:37PM
However whether Scotland would be allowed in might be a different story.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:46PM
Quite some time has passed since the last vigorous bid for Scottish independence. GB may not be in a tenable position to hold them, this time.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:03PM
i say good for scotland if they want their independence
economics is irrelevent (trade doesn't require trade agreements by governments) so the only thing that would change is scottish politics
the smaller the government, the better
go get em scotland
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday June 25 2016, @06:38PM
GB wasn't in much of a position last time either.
The ended up making vague promises of more autonomy and influence in UK affairs, and promising to oppose Scottish membership in the EU. Has anything actually changed?
It's probably time for the whole UK/GB/Ireland island group to redesign their relationship using a much fairer model.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Pax on Saturday June 25 2016, @06:52PM
in fact they made a "VOW" to deliver all those promises before this referendum.... they delivered NONE of it.
This time around with this fresh referendum Scotland WILL most definitely go.
The simple matter is that Scotland is lefter leaning than England at the best of times but now... MUCH FARTHER LEFT than England.
Without delivering on those promises AND one of them being "the security of EU membership".. well.. you know..... it'll be more than 45% voting for independence this time.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:07PM
Fair and the British empire have not much history together...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:34PM
Supposing there will be an EU left for them to join by then anyway...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:56PM
Or more likely, supposing the Spaniards do not veto them joining the EU.
(Score: 1) by Pax on Saturday June 25 2016, @06:55PM
they'll not veto as a "fuck you" to Westminster , there's no love between them
(Score: 2, Interesting) by petecox on Sunday June 26 2016, @12:12AM
Spain is not in a position to dictate anything at this point.
After six months without a government, tomorrow's election may well see an equally momentous result where the old parties (PP, PSOE) are forced to accept a Catalan referendum as a compromise for forming minority government. It remains to be seen whether Felipe is as hardline centrist as his dad JC.
More likely Scotland would be allowed to join so long as the Gibraltar issue is resolved - adopting the Euro as a currency and devolving into a self-governing British Crown Dependency similar to Isle of Man and the channel islands.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @08:19PM
What is unfair is that David Cameron, who set the referendum in motion, gets to walk away in a few months. He should have to sit through every minute of every negotiation until the day of the exit where he should sign his name on the dotted line. This is his dog food, why isn't he eating it?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mtrycz on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:44PM
As a Pole living in Italy: What is EU citizenship?
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:50PM
you being an EU citizen is evidenced exactly the fact that you are a pole living in Italy, and you don't need to talk to any embassy in order to do that.
try living in the US or in Switzerland, and you will immediately notice the difference.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:05PM
Exactly. In Switzerland you may be assaulted with cheese ... and in the US you may be used as target practice by run-of-the-mill crazies, homegrown terrorists, imported terrorists and/or law enforcement.
(Score: 2) by mtrycz on Saturday June 25 2016, @09:29PM
Well shit, never noticed.
My Polish passport has *both* Republic of Poland and European Union signs on it.
Well that's neat. Should have paid more attention.
As a Polish citizen I still need to ask for a "permission to stay", but the process is more straightforward (nearly automatic) than before/then what non-EU people have to go through.
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @09:55PM
I think you're talking about asking city authorities, right? I'm in Germany and I only needed to deal with city hall. same was true when I lived in Belgium.
(Score: 3, Informative) by n1 on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:49PM
There are other 'nations' within the UK that have related issues. Both Nothern Ireland and Gibraltar voted to Remain, and both will continue to share land borders with the EU whatever happens.
Gibraltar was the first place to announce results and Remain received over 90% of the votes.
Northern Ireland's vote was also for Remain, with a larger majority (55.8%) than the overall vote for Leave (51.9% (53.4% in england)). In the case of NI, some areas did vote for Leave, unlike Scotland and Gibraltar.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:11PM
Can someone explain to an American what the relationship is between Great Britain, Scotland, and Wales?
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:21PM
UK = United KingdomS
United Kingdoms are
Great Britain
Wales
Scotland
Each are equal states of common "super" kingdom.
Another leasons...
All of countries are states except in US (united States). we screwed with this so we use countries instead of states since the original US states formed a central federal goverment.
(Score: 5, Informative) by bradley13 on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:43PM
Here's a slighly oversimplified definition:
- {England, Scotland, Wales} = Great Britain = the big island
- {Great Britain + Northern Ireland} = United Kingdom, i.e., including part of the next island over. These four regions are roughly equivalent to U.S. states, and have varying degrees of internal independence. The United Kingdom is the entity that is a member of the EU, and that voted on the Brexit.
- {United Kingdom + countries of former British Empire} = Commonwealth, where the Queen is the ceremonial Head of State, but each country has governmental independence.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:03PM
The way I keep it straight in my mind:
United States(of America) as a 'nation state', the rest of the world has countries as 'nation states'
*glass half empty-glass half full-same difference to me*
We(USA) tend to play word games to seem the exception to the rest of the world, when actual differences already exist.
It is obvious to me that the USA is a nation state, as evidenced by a central Federal government, much less a State Department.
I heard recently that Texas is making noise about seceding from the USA, yet again. I say let them go, this time. (Trump can build a lot of his Wall at the Texas border instead of Mexico, and make Texas pay for it) ;-)
I think Texas would find it's sovereign garden not as rosy as expected...(regardless of the Trump clown)
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:42PM
Duncan Black put it well. He describes a conversation between the newly sovereign Texas and Uncle Sam:
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 25 2016, @05:03PM
The way I keep it straight in my mind: United States(of America) as a 'nation state', the rest of the world has countries as 'nation states' *glass half empty-glass half full-same difference to me*
We(USA) tend to play word games to seem the exception to the rest of the world, when actual differences already exist.
A little history would shed light on this. The US didn't start as the US at the conclusion of the Revolutionary War, but rather a collection of 13 embryonic nation states with a crude supernational organization (the Continental Congress) that realized they couldn't stand independently to the UK or other European powers. They really were states per the usual non-US definition. But of course, this has to be some ego trip of the US not natural evolution of language over time.
I heard recently that Texas is making noise about seceding from the USA, yet again. I say let them go, this time. (Trump can build a lot of his Wall at the Texas border instead of Mexico, and make Texas pay for it) ;-) I think Texas would find it's sovereign garden not as rosy as expected...(regardless of the Trump clown)
This is that typically dysfunctional collectivist entitlement when faced with people who wish to leave a collective group. We'll fuck them over and show them how much they need us! Well, there's a reason that people don't want to belong and you're a big part of it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by rleigh on Saturday June 25 2016, @06:41PM
Er, no. Great Britain, Britannia, is the name of the *island*. England, Wales and Scotland are the countries on the island. Together with Northern Ireland, these comprise the sovereign state called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by wisnoskij on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:31PM
Scotland and Wales are conquered colonies of England. Together with England they form the island of Great Britain. Then the UK is GB plus northern Ireland, another conquered vessel of England.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by n1 on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:23PM
I did give you the insightful mod, but to clarify and have a little rant...
It really depends on what lens you view history though. The UK public in general - in my opinion - has never really come to terms with the empire, and the significance of the unique structure of the UK. 'Britain established societies around the world and gave them their independence when they asked.' is the default reaction. Scotland, NI and Wales are willing participants in all of this for a long time now, they get their chances to leave and we'd make them suffer for it.
There are so many levels to Britain/UK that no other sovereign state really has, although there are similar situations that come to mind. China/Hong Kong/Macau ... USA/Peurto Rico/USVI/etc ... There are elements of other european empires in the caribbean in places like Sint Maarten/Saint-Martin.
The UK voted out of the EU, but not all of the UK was affected by the vote or had a vote. Jersey is a 'dependency' of the UK and has a 'special relationship with the EU' as an example. BVI is not part of the EU, but all BVI residents are EU citizens as another example...
These places are likely to become very expensive to maintain if the UK no longer becomes an easy entry point from outside and into the EU, holding £ to avoid euro exposure while having full access to a much larger market... The credibility and functionality of UK based businesses, even if they're owned offshore.
Middle England voted with their hearts, and I respect their decision. It is not the wrong one. The UK is not as important as it used to be, and the public is perhaps forcing the political establishment's hand in taking a step down. The idea the UK has some leverage over larger economies after taking the ball and going home is laughable. The idea that the EU wouldn't do to the UK what the UK promised to to do Scotland, make life as difficult as possible.
London will survive, the city will go on. The rest of the country however, must wait their turn in the central bank's game of russian roulette. The trickle-down may stop entirely.
This might all end up well in the end, the public gets what they want. An England free from bureaucrats with funny accents. Scotland in the EU. A reunified Ireland. Wales.... winning the rugby? The territories of course getting that tourist and financial services £$.
The Brexit vote is the first step on a very long road in already uncertain times, the battle for democratic representation of the general public hasn't been won, it's only just started.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @05:30PM
The UK was the second largest economy inside the EU, and of the five major EU economies (Germany, UK, France, Italy, Spain), only Germany and the UK had decent employment statistics. That leaves Germany and the ailing France, Italy, and Spain to try to prop up France, Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal, etc. Employment is the elephant in the room that the EU doesn't like to talk about, but it's at the root of many other problems such as migration and racism: people get along much better when they all have jobs and something profitable to do with their time. Unfortunately, the EU never seems capable of seeing its economic problems as employment problems at a human scale, but only as debt problems at a national scale. I suspect that won't change, which means that the EU's employment problems will fester. The UK seems more willing to focus on job creation and loss (much of the discussion over Brexit was about the possibility of job loss), so they might end up with a more stable society. The EU, however, without UK's economic input, will be shorthanded, and the Germans will feel much more tension between their desire to conserve their national wealth and their neighbors' desire for bailouts and fiscal transfer. The French are already paralyzed by their own internal problems (labor reform, unemployment). I suspect Brexit will end up hurting EU stability much more than the UK.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday June 25 2016, @08:22PM
While what you are saying looks correct, you are ignoring that the cause isn't really government, but gradually increasing automation. And it's happening all over the world. This is a part of why Trump has been so successful as a popular candidate. And it's not only happening in the US and Britain. It's probably a part of what makes ISIS so "popular"...though that may be more driven by droughts.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @10:37PM
That might upset the USA though which is having their dollar supported by Saudi Arabia and many other oil producing countries.
But it's like your neighbour buying your money to buy oil and burn up that oil every day. In short people buying your money and burning it. Helps keep you rich doesn't it?
And if more people use your currency to buy and sell stuff, whenever you print your money you are taxing everyone with positive amounts of your currency.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 26 2016, @12:29AM
While what you are saying looks correct, you are ignoring that the cause isn't really government, but gradually increasing automation.
Automation hasn't worked that way before and still doesn't work that way in the developing world. Sure, plenty of jobs are destroyed. But in a healthy economy that doesn't punish its employers, jobs are also created.
And it's happening all over the world. This is a part of why Trump has been so successful as a popular candidate.
There's always some cute rationalization for the ugly. The problem isn't that the jobs went away due to automation. The problem is that the people in power, as far as they have clue, don't care. Successful populists know what buttons to push.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:08PM
Like much of the press coverage, your little rant is far too breathless.
Nothing has changed on the ground.
The UK donated far more money to the EU than they ever got back in any form whatsoever. The current market tantrum is just a pissing contest by EU proponents swilling their scotch and proclaiming "we'll show those bastards who's boss".
But UK industries are on sale right now for something in excess of a 10% discount, and only SJW money would avoid that bargain.
I agree there will be a realignment, but it doesn't stop at the UK's shoreline.
There is serious discussion in at least three EU countries of their own Exit votes, and if the UK successfully fights off the EU's attempt to flush their (UK's) economy down the crapper, then these demands for exit votes will only grow stronger. I expect to see at least ONE more exit votes succeed, and probably 2.
The EU probably needs a reboot - it seems to be infected with a systemd-like virus.
In the mean time, Britain, Scotland, Wales, (and maybe NI, or even Ireland) should probably think of renegotiating their relationship among themselves (if the British can ever swallow their pride) to something along Canadian or Australian lines. After all, the islands aren't going to move.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by n1 on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:46PM
I did say it was a little rant. And nothing has changed on the ground because it's only been 1 business day since the result and the government already kicked the can down the road until October.
I have skin in the game, i'm based in the UK but nearly all business i'm involved in has connections across the world, very little if any is based around internal investment, and those that are UK based entirely, are bracing for a storm and cutting costs. Just because 60% of my business comes from outside the EU doesn't mean i'm looking forward to a 20% cut on-top of the currency devaluation and increased costs to trade in that market.
Where i'm sitting, this is not good. The industries i'm involved in have been cost cutting regardless of where the funding is from, margins are being squeezed in the stagnant economy with only low energy costs keeping a lid on things. I know investment has been withheld because they were waiting on the outcome. The outcome is not something people around London were really hoping for. My concern is whatever happens, the general population are the one's who will lose out.
As I said, it could all end up great. But while construction projects stall and investors are nervous, waiting to see if the EU dissolves or not and what kind of access the UK will have. The coming months to years are far from certain, could be good, could be bad.
But the banks and the landlords are not going to wait on payments while things work themselves out and the foreign money decides the UK is still a safe haven.
This is not based on what i've read in the papers or heard from the politicians, this is based on my own experiences as a small business owner and discussions with people who make investment decisions.
Will all this make the £18bn EDF Hinkley Point project any cheaper?
(Score: 1) by Pax on Thursday July 07 2016, @06:21PM
Really? then explain the riots when the act of the union was passed? they happened in Edinburgh,Glasgow,ayr,Paisley, Kirckaldy, Dunfermline,Aberdeen,Dumfries .. which is to say.. all over Scotland.. then there were the Jacobite rebellions... oh and the 1820 radical risings and more..... to say Scotland went willingly into the union of the parliaments if a stretch at best and disingenuous at worst.
Into the union of the crowns.. yes.. that was King James... however even with the union of the parliaments , Scotland still retains it's own separate and distinct legal system.. still a country but without sovereign status.. this was not wanted by the populace however after the Darrien scheme's failure partly due to shit choice of trading goods and mainly down the English privateers(govt approved pirated who gave a commission back to the crown of their plundered goods) ,Scotland's lords,barons.. land owners were kinda low on funds, and as they served as the parliamentarians.. open to bribery.. which happened and is well documented.
The towns and burghs weren't that badly off financially but the landowners sold out for greed or in the words immortalised by Scotland's national bard... Robert burns "we were bought and sold for English gold, Such a parcel of rouges in a nation"
attitudes like that are part of why we want to fuck off to be quite frank.
(Score: 4, Informative) by rleigh on Saturday June 25 2016, @05:13PM
Scotland was not conquered by England. In fact, the original attempt at uniting the kingdoms was by James VI of Scotland when he also became James I of England and ruled both kingdoms, so could even be regarded as being initiated the other way around. While the history in the following century is messy, the acts of union were negotiated and passed a century later, without any armed conquest (but was not a popular change). It was temporarily unified under Cromwell by force, but there was much discussion of Union in both English and Scottish parliaments over the 16th century. There were of course the Jacobite rebellions, but these happened in all of Britain and Ireland and were more about restoring Charles to the throne and about Catholic and Protestant sectarianism than there were about unification. Put it this way, had history been different and had Charles been restored to the thrones of both Scotland and England, would he have also persued unification? I'd think it likely--it wasn't a new idea and it had already been attempted on several occasions by that point. Union wasn't an act of conquest, it was something that was discussed and attempted for over a century before the actual Acts of Union were negotiated and signed into law by mutual consent, and the Scottish lairds were responsible for that (being broke and needing a bailout also played a part).
While I think it's fair to say that Scotland got the poorer side of the deal out of the Union in terms of it being an unequal distribution of power and wealth, which has continued to this day along with a continued strong desire for independence by many, I don't think it's fair to characterise it as being a conquest by England--the lairds did very well out of it and retained most of their power and independence as part of the United Kingdom, and many Scottish politicians have played very prominent roles in British politics ever since.
Maybe we'll have another independence referendum at some point; I had the privilege to vote in the last one. Reading the original article and the comments, there's a good amount of interesting thoughts in there. But the one that resonates most with me is that achieving independence from the UK only to be a vassal of the EU and the Euro is unlikely to result in meaningful independence. Given the choice of which is more important, association with the rest of the UK or association with the EU, for me that choice is with the rest of the UK. Had the previous referendum resulted in an independent Scotland using the Euro, the Scottish economy could quite easily have turned into the next Greece or Ireland, bankrupt and forced to act against the wellbeing of its own citizens; the state of the EU and eurozone is not at all good, and a small state could easily end up in awful trouble due to the inherent and systemic economic imbalances. I can't see my opinion of that changing unless there are some serious changes to rebalance things to let the economies of Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy etc. recover and prosper, and that is unlikely to ever happen while the current system benefits Germany, which is basically while a common currency is in use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707 [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by helel on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:32PM
CGP Grey has a video explaining the breakdown of the UK if you have a few minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10 [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:39PM
England: The single country of England.
Great Britain: The common land mass of England, Scotland and Wales.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (AKA "The UK"): the combination of all four counties; England, Scotland, Wales *and* Northern Island.
Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales all have their own regional government, which have varying degrees of autonomy over decision making and budgets, but all are beholden to the central government in London, England, which sets laws for the entire UK and also manages the specific affairs that only apply to England. There is also a process underway to divest more power from London to major urban centres in England, such as Manchester, allowing them a greater degree of autonomy over regional budgets but not legislation.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Dunbal on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:24PM
The relationship with Wales and Northern Ireland is one of conquest. Wales was pretty much subjugated and broken by William the Conqueror and his line in the 11th century. While the Welsh retain their national prestige and culture, they do not have an independent government (rather a "National Assembly") and conducted guerilla warfare against the English for many years. Likewise with Ireland - it was repeatedly invaded and conquered by many English kings but the Irish proved to be quite stubborn resulting in revolt the minute the English Army left to fight elsewhere (or simply ran out of funding). Henry VIII was finally declared King of Ireland, but you have to remember this historical period was a time of massive intrigue between Spain, France and England. The Irish have always resented English rule and were quite open to foreign aid to encourage revolt. Over time you end up with England hanging on to a tiny chunk of land called Northern Ireland with the rest of the island reverting back to independence and local rule. The Scottish are the only ones who quite willingly joined with England in 1707 after years and years of bloodshed (the Scots being the ones doing most of the bleeding in later years because of superior English numbers, technology and firepower resulting in repeated massacres). They gave up their autonomy in foreign affairs to the United Kingdom while retaining a local government structure and limited local autonomy. Scotland itself has traditionally been divided between the "Lowland Scots" and the "Highland Scots". The latter view the former as ancient traitors who often take the side of the English at the drop of a hat. North of Edinburgh many Scots still retain their Gaelic speech, although all speak English usually with a heavy accent.
Today the issue is pretty much one of political manipulation, like the French Canadian separatists in Canada. Threatening separation creates political division, which can be exploited for political power. This has been copied all over the world more recently in Catalunia, Spain, and Scotland. The Irish have always resented English control of Northern Ireland. What the politicians often base their campaigns to create this division on is the fact that these geographical areas are usually resource rich and exploited by the other governments. This gives them the idea that they could exist as independent entities. French Canadians, for example, feel that the rest of Canada would collapse without Quebec. Likewise with the Scots who feel that England basically rapes their country for profits while handing Scotland a mere pittance in infrastructure investments. Of course these are only political statements made for political gain. Reality is far more complex. Nothing stops Scots from fully participating in English affairs and profit - for example several recent British Prime Ministers have been Scots - for example Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh. This is the bit they forget - Scots also have full participation in any and all UK affairs. However the politicians focus on local issues to divide the country and create a power-base.
Oh, and I am both French Canadian (born in Montreal) AND Scottish (my mother was born in Aberdeen) and I am a British dual citizen. That is one hell of an explosive mix - bagpipes and maple syrup :) But I feel qualified to talk about this. At least to an American :P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:41PM
in the last paragraph, replace Scotland by UK and UK by EU and you have almost the same description... just add also the emigration, but that is due London being rich and a magnet to attract poor people trying to change their life. Leaving the EU will not truly fix that, no matter what nationalists say, unless London stop being rich... but i suspect that this may be a undesired goal
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:44PM
No it's not the same, because an Englishman cannot become President of Bulgaria.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:22PM
But I feel qualified to talk about this. At least to an American :P
Ach, you'll be needing pictures then... :)
Scotland itself has traditionally been divided between the "Lowland Scots" and the "Highland Scots". The latter view the former as ancient traitors who often take the side of the English at the drop of a hat. North of Edinburgh many Scots still retain their Gaelic speech, although all speak English usually with a heavy accent.
Not quite correct, it's a lot more nuanced than that, for example, to a "Highland Scot" (native Gaelic speaker, Gael, aka Teuchter) I'm a "Lowland Scot" (no Gaelic).
However, my family are of highland extraction, moved to the central belt several generations ago, and lost the Gaelic, so, to me, a Lowlander is from a bit further south than my location, but not so far south that it makes them from the Borders..them's a mad, bad, cursed [hiskingdomprophecy.com] lot.
To the direct North of Edinburgh, you have the Fifers, for your amusement, see this [thecourier.co.uk] regarding Gaelic in Fife, so, not really Gaels.. they're more to be found in the West-North West.
Let's not forget the general East Coast-West Coast divide, the North East-South East divide, the Fife-Rest of the universe divide, the Broughty Ferry (centre of, and all of the known Universe) or the Anglo-Saxon enclaves of the south east, the Norse nature of some of the Western Isles, Orkney and the Shetlands, though they're not as Norse as they'd like to think, an an example re the Orkneys, see here [bbc.co.uk]..and again, have a look at this [scotsman.com], the whole thing is quite an interesting mess, depending on how 'granular' you want to be, I could be here all night...
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Saturday June 25 2016, @04:04PM
Oh, and Glasgow, which is all alone :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @05:54PM
Oh, and Glasgow, which is all alone :)
Ah, we do not talk about the 'G' place...like the 'E' place on the other coast we ignore them in the hope that one day they Oozlum..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @06:36PM
There's a reason it was called auld reekie...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by theluggage on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:29PM
Can someone explain to an American what the relationship is between Great Britain, Scotland, and Wales?
...and further to the other responses:
Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland are all subject to the UK Parliament in London (in which they are all represented) but quite substantial powers [parliament.scot] have been "devolved" to the regional Parliaments/Assemblies in Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland.
The Scottish parliament is currently dominated by the Scottish Nationalist Party.
The SNP technically lost the Scottish Independence referendum a couple of years ago but, in practice, won increased powers for the Scottish parliament and enjoyed a massive surge in popularity & membership.
At the last general election, the SNP also won most of the Scottish seats in the UK Parliament, making them the third largest party, which has never happened before. The ruling Conservative party only have a small majority - so if they are less-than-unanimous* on any vote then the SNP becomes significant. The Labour party opposition, who usually have a lot of Scottish MPs, were virtually driven out of Scotland at the last election, so they're dependent on the SNP in any vote - although Labour and SNP are pretty close politically on everything bar independence.
*Since the Conservative party are less-than-unanimous on Brexit (candidate for understatement of the year) then any vote to implement Brexit is going to be popcorn time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 27 2016, @07:32PM
pls don't admit you're american, it's embarassing.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:26PM
I wonder how long it will be until England decides to rejoin the EU. This is turning out to be a disastrous move and it seems likely they may try to reverse it but it looks like it may already be too late for that.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:52PM
"this is turning out to be a disastrous move"
A bit early to say, don't you think? The disruption in the markets is no surprise, but the actual effects of this decision will not be evident for years. For at least the next two years, the UK will remain a member of the EU.
What I find rather pathetic, even if completely expected, is the whining by the people who lost the referendum. Calling for a re-vote, because they simply cannot comprehend that that other people may actually hold an opposed - and yet equally valid - opinion. They have the attitude of "we love democracy, but only if we get our way". Too many people who never look outside of their filter bubbles...
FWIW, I am not British, nor even in the EU, so I don't have an axe to grind here.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 5, Informative) by zocalo on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:08PM
How long do we need to give it? No one really knows! Maybe parts of the picture will start to become clear in a week, maybe it'll be a month, maybe it'll be nearer October when the new UK government is in place and (presumably) Article 50 is in progress, or maybe it'll be years before things really settle down - when the exit process finally completes or beyond. If there is a major recession, whether for the UK, EU or globally, then it could easily be a decade or more before things get onto an even keel. Some things appear likely to settle down fairly quickly, others are going to take a little longer, and others have no chance of resolution before the exit process is complete and a fully autonomous UK government and economy gets to start playing without the EU's oversight and constraints. Which things fall into which time range, however...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:28PM
I think the losers are particularly upset because this a big change and the score is 52-48. Not a big difference.
The petition you may be thinking of, https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215, [parliament.uk] where there are currently a million and a half signatures (I have no idea how much to trust this number, since we are talking about a website), specifically spells out that a score of 60-40 should be required if less than 75% of voters do vote.
Many countries say that in some cases referendums are invalid if less than 75% or less than 66% of voters show up, and many countries also require big majorities for some decisions (two-thirds majority rather than half+1); so the request is not at all ridiculous in terms of numbers.
However, they are talking about changing the rules after the game has finished. I honestly can't say if they are "right" or "wrong", since the whole situation is so vague anyway. In practice, the unsatisfied voters want out (the Scottish already said this, and now Londoners are saying it as well, see http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36629324 [bbc.com] for some comments on that).
(Score: 2) by rleigh on Saturday June 25 2016, @08:03PM
The actual difference of 3.8% is 1,269,501 votes in favour of leaving. Yes, 1.27 *million* more. We're not talking a tiny and insignificant amount here. It's clear cut and unambiguous.
As for changing the split to 60-40. No. It required a simple majority. It's done. The result is to leave.
We never got a democratic vote to *join* the EU. It was imposed upon us undemocratically, and that's been a point of contention from the start. Would you also be arguing for this if the same result was obtained to *join* the EU? Because it would never have happened if that was the case.
You might think the losers are upset, and they are. But that will pale into insignificance if the democratically determined majority view is not respected and actioned.
(Score: 2) by tonyPick on Sunday June 26 2016, @01:00PM
The sad and/or funny thing about this, is that immediately before the vote it was the exit side that said that a margin this narrow should lead to a second referendum:
http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/24/remember-that-time-nigel-farage-said-52-48-votes-should-lead-to-second-referendum-5963900/ [metro.co.uk]
Quoth the farage:
It turns out the respect for a democratically determined majority view is very very flexible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:49PM
I actually wanted to find this link http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/25/leave-campaign-rows-back-key-pledges-immigration-nhs-spending [theguardian.com] to show you.
When the people who campaigned saying "A" and "B" are now saying there is no "A" nor "B", I think the "losers" are perfectly within their rights to call a revote.
I don't think it's gonna happen, I just think the scots and the irish will leave the UK and come back to the EU. And the leftovers will probably want to rejoin in ten years or so.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by theluggage on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:58PM
What I find rather pathetic, even if completely expected, is the whining by the people who lost the referendum. Calling for a re-vote, because they simply cannot comprehend that that other people may actually hold an opposed - and yet equally valid - opinion.
Its the "equally valid" bit that's the sticking point: is it equally valid if it was based on a very clever, but manipulative campaign based on lies and whipping up anti-immigrant feeling? What if the people voting "leave" didn't think they were going to win, but just wanted to stick it to the government? Heck, I nearly gave in and wrote "piss off Osbourne" on my ballot paper after his juvenile threat to hold a snap austerity budget immediately after a Leave vote.
If you listen to the whining, it is mainly anger about the nature of the campaigns, on both sides. They remain campaign couldn't find anything positive to say about the EU at all - just their dubious extrapolations of doom from the (genuine but unquantified) risk to the economy. Now we're hearing about all the manufacturing industry that moved here to access the single market, now we're hearing about all the EU-funded development projects (often in the post-industrial areas with the biggest "out" votes). Worst of all, the Tories on either side of the debate spent the whole campaign insulting each other - which is far more interesting to the sensationalist press than any actual substantial arguments.
We certainly didn't hear any counters to the "Leave" argument that might be critical of the Tory government - even if the £350m/week "saving" had been true (it wasn't) there is no fucking chance in hell that a Tory would spend it on the health service when it could go to cutting higher rate taxes (...and yes, those leaflets explicitly, in large friendly letters on the front, that we send 350m a week to the EU which we could spend on the Health Service). The Leave campaigners are already back-pedaling on that one [bbc.co.uk]. Oh, and apparently Leave weren't saying that leaving would significantly reduce immigration [bbc.co.uk], either.
This is the problem - the decision is probably irreversible. It's not like electing a government which we can undo after 5 years. It should never have been put to a simple majority vote. 48% voted against. Several regions were strongly against.
Also, its becoming increasingly clear that even the Leave movement didn't expect to win and don't have a clue what to do next, certainly not how they're going to persuade Brussels to let us have our cake and eat it in terms of the single market (which their campaign relied on).
Trouble is - its not a straightforward decision. There are risks and problems with EU membership (the Euro has one foot in the grave and another on a banana skin, there are a raft of problems with free movement, border control and fair handling of genuine refugees that need EU-wide action) so, like all important decisions, its about risk management rather than some binary right/wrong judgement. The problem with a referendum is that it turns everything into an adversarial circus, where the winner is the side with the best speechwriters, not the best argument.
Its not as if even an independent UK is going to be immune if the EU goes titsup (heck, even the US markets took a dive yesterday) - and Brexit has just thrown a huge banana skin (and a bendy one at that) under the EU's feet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @06:43PM
B...bbbbut... can haz a Independence Day?
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:28PM
I wrote: "...calling for a re-vote, because they simply cannot comprehend that that other people may actually hold an opposed - and yet equally valid - opinion."
theluggage replied: "What if the people voting "leave" didn't think they were going to win, but just wanted to stick it to the government?"
You're just making my point for me: You apparently cannot accept that the people voting to leave actually meant what they said. You're looking for some way - any way - to invalidate their opinion, to treat their votes as invalid.
- - -
theluggage also writes: "...manipulative campaign based on lies"
Which pretty much describes every political campaign ever, from the opponent's point of view.
- - -
Your objections mostly center on the idea that some (many? most?) voters on the Leave side did not take the vote seriously. On the other hand, as you point out, this is an important decision, much more irreversable than an ordinary election. Do you really think people didn't know that? Anyway, why do you think that the non-serious voters are only on one side of the issue?
There is just as much reason to suppose that some people voted Remain, not because it's the right choice, but because they are frightened of change. Certainly, that could be attributed to many young voters whose entire adult lives have been spent with the EU for company. Only older voters really know what life was like before the EU. Notably, older voters choose overwhelmingly to jettison the EU.
The one point I will agree with: A 50% threshold for such a serious decision is probably too low. On the other hand, this is a non-binding referendum, stating only a goal (but not how to achieve it), with no set time frame. What the government does, and how, and on what time-scale: this is where the professionals need to earn their pay.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Saturday June 25 2016, @11:14PM
Your objections mostly center on the idea that some (many? most?) voters on the Leave side did not take the vote seriously.
No, some voters on the Leave side voted because they were (rightly or wrongly) concerned about immigration. The remain side told them not to be silly racists. The Leave side told them that leaving EU would lower immigration (something they are now back-pedalling on).
Some voters voted Leave for warm fuzzy buzzwords like "regain sovereignty", "take back control", "make Britain great again".
Some voters voted "Leave" because they wanted to the Government and (stupidly) PM Cameron and his sidekick Osbourne made themselves the face of the Remain campaign, rather than keeping the government neutral - before the vote, most people assumed that "remain" was going to win comfortably.
Some voters have never voted in a yes/no referendum before (we've only ever had 2 others, one was 40 years ago on the same subject, the other was about a change to the electoral system that nobody gave a shit about and they both went for the status quo by a much bigger margin) and are used to parliamentary elections in which, unless you are in a marginal constituency, individual votes don't count for much.
...and when the margin was only a couple of percent, you don't need "most" or "many" to swing the result - a few "somes" will do the job nicely.
There have been plenty of interviews on TV showing Leave voters who were surprised and, sometimes, a bit taken aback. Not least the leaders of the "Leave" campaign who now actually have to try to deliver what they rather carelessly promised.
There is just as much reason to suppose that some people voted Remain, not because it's the right choice, but because they are frightened of change.
...with good reason. Its one thing to be frightened about change and never take calculated risks, it's another thing to be frightened about a leap in the dark with no coherent plan hoping, fingers crossed, the EU will let us have our cake and eat it by staying in the single market without the obligations of EU membership... and no, I don't think some of the Leave voters understand why that is such an implausible, one-sided deal which would cause all the other EU members with strong industry to ask for the same terms.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:48PM
The thing is, I found out this week that half of the british people are idiots. It's still better than the US, but I was actually shocked. Even you, who seem to have a very good grasp of the bigger picture, say you considered voting in order to send a message to some politician rather than voting in order to choose the best long term status of your country.
It's very scary, because you guys have the BBC and the BBC seems, to me at least, as the most sane thing on TV in the world right now (well, I actually just read their website, and I can't say I have any idea about any news outlet that doesn't use english or romanian). If the UK people, with the BBC present, and with world class scientists and universities spread throughout the island, can be brainwashed into this state, what chance do the rest of us have?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by theluggage on Saturday June 25 2016, @09:51PM
The thing is, I found out this week that half of the british people are idiots.
No, not idiots. Just people who were asked to make a difficult decision without the necessary information. The Leave campaign cynically addressed their fears and blamed them all on the EU, the Remain campaign bombarded them with patronising FUD and told them that immigrants pay lots of tax (but neglected to explain why the government hadn't used some of that tax to build the extra schools and hospitals etc. that the immigrants needed).
I've travelled to the continental EU (and the USA, for a glimpse of one alternative) - as part of my job, working with colleagues from those countries, not just to visit the local tourist spots. Strolled into countries that were enemy war zones when my parents were young, firmly behind the Iron Curtain (if they existed) and part of the Evil Empire when I was young. Now you don't even need to show a passport when you cross the borders by land - its wonderful. Even with Britain being outside the Shengen open-borders zone its just a wave of a passport when you first land (maybe you need to have stood for 2 hours in US immigration waiting to be fingerprinted and quizzed to really appreciate that). That's a privilege that many people haven't enjoyed or - if they have - its just been as a tourist (which isn't quite the same - it never feels quite real, and you're a customer to most people you meet).
... and, yeah, even I didn't find the decision a complete no-brainer. There are many, many things about the EU that need fixing - but we're not the only country that realises that now, and on reflection the one thing Leaving guarantees is that we won't now be able to play a part in fixing them - yet Europe is still reachable in a rowing boat.
But when I was much, much younger and I hadn't really set foot in another country, I'd have voted Leave, too. Funnily enough, the age profile seems to have reversed now - but then the young people are all having borderless conversations on social media.
It's very scary, because you guys have the BBC and the BBC seems, to me at least, as the most sane thing on TV in the world right now
Unfortunately, we also have a lot of right-wing newspapers who print endless sensational nonsense about the EU (and the EU does/says just enough genuinely stupid things to provide the necessary grain of truth).
...and the BBC are great, but BBC journalists are still journalists and will always let a headline about squabbling tories trading insults push any actual analysis down to the bottom of a page. They're also prone to "bias by balance" (making a minority opinion sound as if its a widely-held position) and "Headline Bias" (broadly balanced article, but with a one-sided headline).
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday June 25 2016, @08:32PM
It's not too late to reverse in any logical sense, but it might be political suicide to do so. Britain has to ask to withdraw to actually start the process, and a non-binding referendum doesn't count as that.
OTOH, the Prime Minister has said he's going to resign before October..and he's probably not going to ask for withdrawal, as he has been continually opposed to it. One can only guess who his successor will be, or what his policies.
That said, Scotland may need to withdraw from the UK BEFORE the UK applies to withdraw from the EU in order to have the best chance of being accepted/retained as an EU member. And they appear to be moving along a path intended to expedite that.
Also, the UK had negotiated a series of concessions from the EU that were contingent upon BREXIT failing. So those concessions are gone, and the negotiators are upset over having wasted their time. And that means high level EU officials are unhappy with Britain. Yesterday they were saying, paraphrased, "Don't let the door slam behind you.", but today they appear to be a bit less antagonistic (in public).
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:31PM
methinks it all comes down to money.
where do you want to pay "taxes"?
are you even allowed to chose/vote ... finance democracy?
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:36PM
It was my understanding that it was very clear that the Scots voted to stay in the EU both times, and that if there would of been a clear and certain path to independent EU membership that the independent vote a few years ago would of went a completely different way.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:09PM
Exactly. The EU refused to offer Scotland any sort of accelerated path to membership, even though it is already in the EU. This was almost certainly at the behest of the UK government. If Scotland had been offered a clear path into the EU, they would already be out of the UK. Now that the UK has voted to leave the EU, I fully expect Scotland to call for another referendum. There will be no holding them this time.
That said, the Scottish politics are classic pie-in-the-sky leftist: they want generous social and governmental programs, paid for by someone else. An independent Scotland would run deficits of around 6% GDP per year [theguardian.com]; that assumes that Scotland keeps all of the UK's North Sea oil. Without the oil, it gets a lot worse. These figures don't account for the current EU investments in Scotland, nor for the additional costs of establishing all of the institutions currently provided by the UK (diplomacy, defense, etc.).
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:11PM
The EU "refused to offer Scotland any sort of accelerated path to membership" because Spain would instantly veto it in order not to encourage the Catalans. End of story.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by fnj on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:29PM
Independence, my ass. These morons want to be part of a big EU tyranny. Rob Roy and William Wallace are turning over in their graves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 27 2016, @07:57PM
it's not flamebait, you idiots. it's an opinion. i would say the correct one. i'm not the op.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:57PM
there's an emerging meme (that I think sounds plausible) that this entire Brexit is an internal stuggle for Bojo to become PM.
The vote is not legally binding, and the EU no matter what they say, really don't want the UK to leave.
The circus caused by the unexpected vote, including these referenda reruns, are part of the show. There will be a General Election with Bojo as PM, *after* he rescues this EU deal.
Oh and the EU membership of Scotland is less likely than Ireland reunification - there is a queue to enter and they can no longer count on the UK to pay for smaller entrants.
The problem is the media had such a low signal/noise ratio, there was no rational basis for this vote - hence, this political show...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @07:32PM
> there's an emerging meme (that I think sounds plausible) that this entire Brexit is an internal stuggle for Bojo to become PM.
Not really. He was going to be the bridge builder, reuniting the two halfs of the tory party. Graciously implementing the will of the British people when they voted to remain.
Then leading the tories into the next General Election.
Before the campaign staarted, he was mostly an EU supporter.
He has gone extremely quiet as he tries to figure out how to salvage his position after actually winning.
He is far too toxic now to reunite the Tories.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:02PM
Now if the UK should actually separate from the EU, I can see the situation reversing itself with the EU encouraging the separation. I doubt it will be hard for Scotland to get membership in that situation. But it does indication a considerable amount of duplicity from the EU which is being glossed over.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:11PM
That was because of the Spain/Catalonia issue. Once again, this is subtly different. Last time I didn't get a vote on Scottish independence because I live and work in England, and I wasn't particularly fussy what the outcome was. This time I will demand a vote.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:23PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @04:02PM
That was because of the Spain/Catalonia issue. Once again, this is subtly different. Last time I didn't get a vote on Scottish independence because I live and work in England, and I wasn't particularly fussy what the outcome was. This time I will demand a vote.
A lot of us in Scotland were pissed off about that, people in your position, born Scot I assume, living abroad who couldn't vote yet the 'white settlers' up here (500,000+ of the fuckers) could?
Lest we forget, the No vote won by 383,937 last time..
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 25 2016, @04:47PM
A lot of us in Scotland were pissed off about that, people in your position, born Scot I assume, living abroad who couldn't vote yet the 'white settlers' up here (500,000+ of the fuckers) could?
What's wrong with that? You ignore a huge can of worms here. If you're opening up the vote to the outside world, then why shouldn't the whole of the UK vote? Only True Scotsmen should be allowed to vote? Who gets to decide what is a True Scotsman?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @05:50PM
That's easy -- 9 out of 10 Scots agree that no true Scotsman would vote for continued subjugation to London.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @06:22PM
..Who gets to decide what is a True Scotsman?
Not who, but what. I give you those most radical of inventions..the Birth certificate and Passport, you know, the things which details wee things like place of birth and nationality, I'm sure someone somewhere [nrscotland.gov.uk] must have this info [www.gov.uk].. The passport only comes into play for Scots living/working abroad, as a means of verifying they are still full UK nationals for the purposes of the vote (if you've given up your nationality, even partially, then you've already made your choice..)
so, not so hard.
(Score: 1) by Pax on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:29PM
NAAAH.. it's a matter for people REGISTERED TO VOTE IN SCOTLAND at the relevant time..... simple as that.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday June 25 2016, @05:58PM
You assume that breaking up the United Kingdom only affects the Scots - hence why you believe that only Scots should have a vote. You are wrong. You have your own assembly and have been given, and continue to receive, increasing powers of self governance and management. The status of the United Kingdom affects all of those countries that are part of it. Members of each of those countries should also be allowed to have their say. Do you really believe that you can afford your own defence forces? Or do you want independence but also want someone else to protect 'your oil' interests? What about air or sea defence? Russian aircraft and naval forces are becoming increasingly active around the UK. I suspect that you will still expect the UK to provide a deterrence even though you seem increasingly determined to break all other ties. And if you think that you will never face any threat that might require forces to deter an aggressor then perhaps you should study your own history a little more closely. Sure, you can kick the nuclear deterrent out of Faslane Naval Base- and I am certain that you have something up your sleeve for the associated job losses - but you will probably need some form of defence force eventually. You can keep your Scottish Regiments, genuinely fine and professional soldiers all, but how will you get them to wherever they are required? RyanAir, North Sea Ferries, organise a coach trip? Nope, you will still expect an agreement for the remaining UK to help provide such things for you
Whose currency will you choose? The Euro - in which you will have even less say than you currently enjoy with Sterling, despite your haste to break that link. Or will you expect the Bank of Scotland to have sufficient assets to support your future ambitions? There are many economists who do not think that is possible. Or, of course, you can break the UK ties and then expect the remainder of the UK to provide 'our' currency so that you can also use it - and of course, you will want a say in interest rates and fiscal policy that will also affect us, but heaven forbid that we should want a say in what you want to do.
I'm afraid that we are, for better or for worse, far more closely linked than those who claim that your independence is only a referendum away believe. And your independence makes the assumption that every EU member will support you joining them - it only takes one to veto your request and you are stuck on your lonesome. I'm afraid that our recent actions may have muddied that puddle a bit. And, assuming that you are successful, I wonder how much you will have to contribute the the EU coffers each month for the privilege of becoming a member? I wonder also what quota of refugees you will be 'allocated' to meet the EU's humanitarian objectives? How much will you have to contribute for the next Greek bailout or for whichever country is next to find the going getting tough? The UK managed to negotiate special terms for these things - but potential new members will not be so lucky.
Whose passports will you carry? You do have a passport agency in Scotland, I take it? Oh, you don't... who will fund it and print your passports - or do you expect the UK to continue to do that because we are 'old friends'? The UK will probably do it - but it won't be for free.
The existence of the United Kingdom affects all of those countries that are part of it. Members of each of those countries should also be allowed to have their say. The referendum that you seek should not be called a referendum for Scottish Independence, but a referendum for the dissolution of the United Kingdom. Surely, Northern Ireland might also want a say based on recent voting trends. It will not affect Scotland alone - you will still need neighbours and friends in this world. A vote that includes us all and not just Scots, in my opinion, would be fairer.
My own view is that the referendum for Brexit has been held. Regardless of what either of us would prefer, the result is in and we should try to make the very best of this opportunity rather than sit and complain. We are where we are, it doesn't matter what we thought a few days ago, everything is changing whether we like it or not.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:21PM
Fact is, if you had had the balls to vote out in the first place we wouldn't all be where we are now. The first IndyRef was the test bed for project fear, including the involvement of EU officials -
"the leavers have no plan"
"the leave figures are all wrong"
"it's a big scary leap into the dark"
And it worked on the you (twice). So our f***wit politicians thought if it works on the guys who stomp up freezing mountains in skirts with no underwear how could it not work on the lily-livered english, but just to be sure we'll up the fear a bit more, throw in some world war three, decline and fall of western civilization, can't possibly fail...
Now you (or some of you) say
"er, actually we've found our balls and we want to have another go at taking that leap through the other door we opened before but then didn't go through because it was too scary"
Oh no, you started this game of opening exit doors, it's your fault we opened this door, your fault the politicians and eurocrats thought that they could safely ask us if we really wanted to leave because we'd bottle it, and now we've taken a collective decision to go through, so you are bloody well coming with us.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:28PM
It seems Brits are as uninformed about their politics [theverge.com] as anyone else. Way to promote the virtues of democracy, finding out what you were voting for after the vote!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @08:03PM
What? You mean there are real consequences, aside from being able to lord over the other side's commentators on Internet forums?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @11:00PM
How do you know the people searching for "what happens if we leave the EU" are 'leave' voters?
You guys hate Democracy SO much when you don't get the results you want.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 25 2016, @05:52PM
My view is that there is a very serious, millennia-old political problem of collective building, whether it be some ancient empire's army subjugating neighbors or modern sticky relationships, which try to glue people or countries together without regard to the members' interests. Separation (sometimes just limited) is often the only solution that a marginalized member of a collective can achieve and it doesn't serve us well to mock that.
Here, the UK and Scotland had valid reasons and considerable interest for their respective calls to separate. Neither has carried through on those calls. I feel the spontaneous calls for Scottish independence at this point are being stoked by the EU and "remain" advocates solely to prevent UK departure from the EU. If the UK doesn't follow through on the Brexit vote, will Scotland still be allowed to have an independence vote, or will that advocacy suddenly evaporate (just like it suddenly appeared) once a UK departure threat has gone away? Once the utility of an Scottish independence referendum goes away for the EU, will Scotland once again be thrust into the ambiguity of possibly losing EU-membership just like in the 2014 referendum?
Keep in mind that since EU membership for the UK has considerable value to the EU and Scotland is strongly pro-EU, there is incentive for the EU to obstruct and deny Scottish independence due to normal gerrymander dynamics.
(Score: 1) by Pax on Saturday June 25 2016, @08:01PM
you do realise that the first Minister has set up an advisory board, has invited all the consuls of the EU who have a presence in Edinburgh next week and the week after and put together q research panel to look into the option and put together a fresh independence referendum.... don't you?
you seem to assume that somehow Boris will back-peddle on the EU Ref vote? that's an AWFUL lot of supposition and utter political suicide for him
WOW.. do you actually live in Scotland? because that's really NOT why at all....
I said it before and I'll say it again for your benefit too
The Prime Minister made a "VOW" to the Scots before the last indy ref that we would be promised a list of stuff including "the guaranteed security of EU membership" and extra powers for the Scottish parliament to be delivered last year ( hint.. they didn't actually deliver them at all.. any of them!).
Scotland is a more left leaning country it is fair to say than England and since this referendum it's now MUCH more left as England has jumped to the right.
What Scotland voted for at the last independence referendum is been baited and switched.... it's not not there any more and thus we feel we want to re-run the referendum and leave the UK. Scotland spoke very clearly last Thursday in every single constituency and is thus an ample demonstration of the democratic deficit Scotland has when dealing with issues at Westminster/UK level.
As for the EU... I think you'll find that doors will magically start opening as a wee "fuck you very much" from EU to Westminster.. we'll see soon after these meetings with the consuls and also the the EU omission and the SNP next week.
your suppositions are really out of touch with what the facts are in Scotland.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday June 25 2016, @08:39PM
You might also check at http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/ [antipope.org] for a slightly different prediction. Not one, however, that promises less friction.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 26 2016, @12:05AM
you do realise that the first Minister has set up an advisory board, has invited all the consuls of the EU who have a presence in Edinburgh next week and the week after and put together q research panel to look into the option and put together a fresh independence referendum.... don't you?
you seem to assume that somehow Boris will back-peddle on the EU Ref vote? that's an AWFUL lot of supposition and utter political suicide for him
Ok, are you trying to disagree or something? Just here we see in your first paragraph the sudden interest in another Scottish independence referendum with EU involvement. As to Boris Johnson, backpeddling is not that politically risky. First, there will be another referendum on UK departure because the first one didn't actually count. I gather the Scottish independence referendum is to scare voters into a "remain" position for that. Second, even if Johnson were to become reviled in the UK, he can always take on a position in the EU bureaucracy. They always have room for more turncoats.
I note that Cameron campaigned on a mildly Euroskeptic platform including a referendum on whether to stay part of the EU, but successfully put off the referendum for six years. There's no reason to expect his successor is going to be any more ambitious about pushing forward on this matter.
WOW.. do you actually live in Scotland? because that's really NOT why at all....
I said it before and I'll say it again for your benefit too
The Prime Minister made a "VOW" to the Scots before the last indy ref that we would be promised a list of stuff including "the guaranteed security of EU membership" and extra powers for the Scottish parliament to be delivered last year ( hint.. they didn't actually deliver them at all.. any of them!).
Funny way to agree with me. The pro-EU part of the UK political system stabbed them in the back. What a coincidence.
Here's my prediction on the matter which I doubt diverges much from whatever you think on the matter ("doors will magically start opening"). If the UK continues towards separation from the EU, the EU won't have any trouble incorporating an independent Scotland and will have plenty of opportunity to say so, especially during any future UK referendums on departing from the EU. If the UK doesn't follow through on the current referendum (which I still think is where the smart money is on this) and stays firmly part of the EU, then the EU will noisily prevaricate during any Scottish independence referendums about how they are unable to guarantee a place for Scotland in the EU. And if Scotland does become independent, no matter what the circumstances, then there will promptly and spontaneously be a place in the EU for Scotland.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @08:39PM
Lot of angry Liberals over the past few days, extremely spiteful towards Brexit, now rooting for Britain's financial demise and Scottish independence.
Are they willing to give American citizens & states who want to quit the US from overbearing Democrat policies the same leeway?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @10:06PM
KIPPER!!!
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @10:29PM
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/746272130992644096 [twitter.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @09:02PM
Gorbachev wanted to strengthen the USSR; instead he hastened its break-up. Cameron wanted to strengthen the Tories; instead the break-up of the UK may be hastened.